4-1: Final (MTL). 25-25: Shots (MTL-SEA). 1.82-1.82: xG (MTL-SEA). -1.18: Murphy GSAx Two ways to read the shot data on this game and they disagree mildly. Seattle carried slightly more shot-attempt share at 5-on-5 (Corsi 53%), and the raw shot totals were even at 25-25. But the model graded Montreal as the better attacking team by chance quality (xG 1.82 to 1.82, high-danger 8 to 7). The most striking single-game number isn't on the Montreal side. It's the shape of Seattle's chance distribution: their best look of the night was a 0.25 xG one-timer, 0.07 xG higher than their next-best shot . They scored on it. They never produced another chance the model considered comparably dangerous. Three goals in 9:27 Montreal's three regulation goals all came in the second period, between 2:28 and 11:55 of the second. That is a 9:27 window in game time. The model priced the three shots at 0.13, 0.24, and 0.10 xG : Natálie Mlýnková 's wrister at 2:28, Laura Stacey 's power-play one-timer at 3:43 (the highest-quality chance of the burst), and Skylar Irving 's 5-on-5 finish at 11:55. Combined: roughly 0.47 xG of expectation for three actual goals. Seattle scored their lone goal at 9:53 of the same period, which means the entire game was decided in 9:27 of game-clock and Seattle was on the wrong end of the chance-quality split inside that window. Worth flagging the line: Ann-Renée Desbiens picked up a secondary assist on Skylar Irving 's goal. Goalie assists are not common (typically a few per team across a full PWHL season) and they require the goalie to make the second-to-last touch on a scoring sequence, usually a clearing pass that sets up a long transition. It's a small line item; it counts. Seattle's chance-quality ceiling Theresa Schafzahl 's tying goal at 9:53 of the second was a 0.26 xG shot, the cleanest in-tight look Seattle generated all night. The next-best Torrent shot was 0.18 xG. The next four were below 0.15. That distribution is how a 25-shot night still adds up to 1.82 xG total: a lot of attempts from places the model says are not high-percentage, with one breakthrough in front of the net. Schafzahl finishing it is good process; not generating another comparable look in the remaining 50 minutes is what made the score 4-1. Goaltending, decomposed Ann-Renée Desbiens faced 25 shots worth 1.82 xG and conceded one. That is +0.82 goals saved above expectation . Adding the assist on top of that, it was a clean three-line night for the Montreal goaltender. Hannah Murphy stopped 21 of 24 live shots worth 1.82 xG, finishing at -1.18 GSAx . Montreal's late empty-netter is excluded from her line, as is standard for goalie evaluation. On the three regulation goals she did concede, two were under 0.13 xG and the third was the Laura Stacey power-play one-timer at 0.24. None of them are the kind of shot a goalie carries the blame for in isolation; the negative GSAx here is mostly below-expectation finishing landing on her side of the ledger. The game in cumulative xG The scoring timeline P2 2:28 · Natálie Mlýnková · xG 0.12 · MTL 1, SEA 0. P2 3:43 · Laura Stacey (PP) · xG 0.21 · MTL 2, SEA 0. P2 9:53 · Theresa Schafzahl · xG 0.25 · MTL 2, SEA 1. P2 11:55 · Skylar Irving · xG 0.09 · MTL 3, SEA 1. P3 19:48 · Shiann Darkangelo (EN) · xG 0.00 · MTL 4, SEA 1 Seattle's six best looks Every Seattle attempt the model graded above 0.07 xG. The gap between the top entry and the rest is the analytical story of the Torrent's offence on the night. They had one real high-danger chance and a long tail of mid-quality looks behind it. P2 9:53 · Theresa Schafzahl (goal) · xG 0.25. P3 12:49 · Aneta Tejralová · xG 0.18. P2 6:04 · Alex Carpenter · xG 0.15. P2 12:22 · Mikyla Grant-Mentis · xG 0.12. P2 15:53 · Hilary Knight · xG 0.12. P3 2:10 · Theresa Schafzahl · xG 0.11 What this read isn't Not a claim Seattle was the better team and got robbed. They weren't. xG and high-danger both lean Montreal, even if the raw shot totals are a tie. The Schafzahl goal was good; the rest of the chance distribution was thin.. Not a claim Hannah Murphy played poorly. A -1.0 GSAx night against three regulation goals on shots under 0.25 xG is mostly variance landing on her side; the underlying save process wasn't anywhere near as bad as the four-goal line on the score sheet.. Not a single-game indictment of the Seattle attack. One quiet game on chance generation against a top defensive structure is a normal data point, not a season trend. The right test is the rolling chance-quality profile across the next 8 to 10 games.. Not a model failure. A 60-40 favourite winning 4-1 with one of those goals into an empty net is well within the variance of a single regulation game. Methodology xG model : PWHL-calibrated logistic regression on 16,709 non-EN shots. Same fit as the methodology post . Features: distance, angle, rebound (≤3 s), penalty shot, power play, overtime, scorer-tagged quality chance, seven shot-type dummies. Empty-net shots are priced outside the main model (MoneyPuck / NST convention).. GSAx : summed xG on shots faced minus goals allowed, computed per-goalie from the PBP feed. Empty-net shots and goals are excluded from both sides of the ledger.. Numbers regenerate on every build. A PBP re-sync or xG recalibration reshapes every figure in this post on the next static export. Full play-by-play, shift overlays, and the per-player game log for this game are at /games/100 .